The nation’s political leaders were warned to be careful about the donor, Huang Xiangmo. ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis organised briefings in 2015 to make sure both sides of politics knew that he was not a run-of-the-mill property developer. The warning was that he had significant links to the Chinese Communist Party.

As revealed in a joint investigation by Fairfax Media and the ABC’s Four Corners last June, the Australian security agency briefed Abbott and his successor, Malcolm Turnbull, as well as Bill Shorten. It also briefed the administrative heads of the major parties.

Huang Xiangmo with former prime minister Tony Abbott.

Advertisement

The timing is important because the two major parties were in an arms race ahead of the 2016 federal election. The Liberal Party was starved of cash during the last months of Abbott’s leadership but there was no flood of money after Turnbull challenged in September 2015. The fact that Turnbull had to donate $1.75 million showed just how dire things were.

So when Huang offered cash, who would say no? One of his companies paid $55,000 for a boardroom lunch with Shorten. Another company donated $30,000 to NSW Labor, a sign of his close link to Sam Dastyari, at the time a NSW senator after years as the party’s NSW state secretary.

What is especially interesting is the way the money flowed through to Liberal campaigns in marginal seats. Rather than send one big cheque to the party headquarters, the Huang companies sliced the donation into smaller portions to help ministers and backbenchers where they needed it most.

Illustration: Simon Letch

The money did not go to individuals – a key point because many MPs are frustrated at the impression sometimes given to voters that funds put into their campaigns are held in some sort of personal bank account. The cash went into each Federal Electorate Conference, or FEC, run by the Liberals for each local campaign. It’s not uncommon for party officials to control the cash while issuing orders to a backbencher about how to campaign.

The money flowed during the five weeks before the election on July 2, 2016. One company, Chaoshan No.1 Pty Ltd, gave $10,000 to Andrew Hastie’s campaign in Perth, $10,000 to Ann Sudmalis’ campaign in regional NSW, $10,000 to Eric Hutchinson’s campaign in Tasmania and $20,000 to Michael Sukkar’s campaign in Melbourne.

Another company, Jade Fisheries Pty Ltd, gave $10,000 to Ben Morton’s campaign in Perth, $20,000 to Karen McNamara’s campaign on the NSW central coast and $20,000 to Andrew Nikolic’s campaign in Tasmania.

Mandarin International Investments Pty Ltd gave $20,000 to the Sturt FEC, which runs the campaign for Christopher Pyne’s seat, and $20,000 to the Senate campaign for Mathias Cormann in Western Australia.

Some MPs were kept in the dark about who was behind the cash. Some insist they never met Huang, were never asked to do anything for him and did not know he was contributing to their campaign. The reason for this can be simple: party officials were managing the cash and were keeping the MPs out of the picture.

Even so, this is an almighty mess for any politician whose campaign benefitted from a dubious donation. It is an indictment of the two major parties and their failure to apply any checks and balances on their fund-raising exercises.

Loading

The explanation is simple. Cynical as always, political operators took the cash even though they knew the source was suspect. They waved away the warnings from ASIO in the belief they could take the money without any blowback.

It was not like this in every instance. I’ve been told of one case where the Liberals cancelled an event with a Chinese businessman at short notice because of doubts about the donor’s background.

Abbott has not explained the role he played between Huang and the Liberals. Huang lives in the former prime minister’s electorate of Warringah and the two have met “a couple” of times, according to Abbott’s spokesman. In a brief statement, Abbott denied encouraging Huang to donate and denied suggesting the FECs worth supporting.

But there is no doubt Abbott knew the Chinese billionaire wanted to open his chequebook. “Mr Abbott is aware Mr Huang sought to donate to the Liberal Party and understands he was encouraged to do so in accordance with AEC rules,” the spokesman said. Encouraged by whom? Everybody is pointing fingers at someone else.

It is worth noting, though, that Huang’s money tended to go to conservative Liberals on the same side of the party as Abbott – people like Hastie, Nikolic and Sukkar. The Liberals in Abbott’s electorate of Warringah had an agreement to raise funds to help McNamara win the seat of Dobell. (It wasn’t enough – she lost.) In at least one case, Abbott’s office was in touch with an MP to confirm the Huang donation was being made.

None of this was on a par with Labor’s experience. None of these MPs received $55,000 to dine with Huang, which is what happened with Shorten. None of these MPs stood side-by-side with Huang at a press conference at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Office in Sydney to lend support to Chinese claims in the South China Sea, which is what happened with Dastyari.

The donations may not have purchased any outcome. Morton, whose campaign received $10,000, is using his position on the joint standing committee on electoral matters to press for a ban on foreign donations. But how can voters be sure no favours were given by others? The money should not have been accepted in the first place.

At least one Liberal is confronting the problem. Hastie says he will return the $10,000. It is the right thing to do. Hastie chairs the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, where nobody should be vulnerable to concerns about debts to Chinese donors. His actions set a challenge for his colleagues and his party. Who else will return the cash?

This experience should heighten the sense of urgency about reforming donations law and legislating new checks on foreign interference, despite understandable concerns about the scope of the government’s proposed laws.

Security briefings obviously do not change how politicians raise cash. Only headlines do.